Second Timothy 2 15 be diligent to present yourself approved to God a worker who does not need to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth Alpha and Omega ministries presents the dividing line radio broadcast The Apostle Peter commanded all Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give this answer with gentleness and reverence. Your host is Dr. James White, Director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, you can call now by dialing 602-274-1360. That's 602-274-1360. Or if you're out of the Metro Phoenix dialing area, it's 1-888-550-1360. That's 1-888-550-1360. And now, with today's topic, here's James White. And good afternoon and welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White, White, Light, whatever my name is. We're live in studio. You can tell because if we were recording this we could have just digitally removed that whoops and it would have been just fine, but we're live in studio. We have survived the experience of being up teaching at the main campus of Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary the past 10, 11 or so days, and the experience the week before of the debate in Fullerton, California, which is what we're going to be talking about today, and we'll be taking your phone calls later on the program. If you want the number, it's 602-274-1360 in the local Phoenix dialing area, and 1-888-550-1360 if you are outside the Phoenix dialing area, maybe listening on the internet, maybe you're in our chat room, since I put a topic line up in the chat room right before I left that said, listen. And so if you're in the chat room and you're not listening, you are disobeying channel rules, and when I get back, I will kick-ban you for not doing so. But, be that as it may, Today I'd like to review some of the events at the Fullerton debate. I am hoping that many of you have already ordered the tapes of the debate. They are available. Audio tapes are available at www.aomin.org. And if you're just tuning in and didn't know about this, on Friday night, July 7th, There was a debate held at Plummer Auditorium in Fullerton, California. The subject? Papal infallibility. Now, back in November of 1996, I had debated Mr. Timothy Staples, who at that time was with St. Joseph Catholic Radio, and he's now with St. Joseph Communications, which also handles such notable folks as Mitchell Pacwa, Scott Hahn, and other individuals like that. And back in 1996, we had quite the rousing debate where I defended sola scriptura and did so in front of a large crowd of primarily Roman Catholic individuals. And prior to doing the program, Mr. Staples and I were on for two hours with Hank Hanegraaff on the Bible Answer Man broadcast back in 1996. And I had recognized at that time both the fact that there were some problems in how the crowd behaved and how they were handled by Mr. Staples, as well as the use of ad hominem argumentation by Mr. Staples. I had written an open letter to him, which is still on our website and can be accessed at www.aomin.org. But time heals all wounds, and we wanted to arrange a debate with someone on the subject of papal infallibility. We have debated the subject of the papacy itself, whether the bible teaches the concept of a papacy where the bible teaches the the primacy of peter and then the creation of an office with successors and that the uh... only possible successor to peter would be the bishop of rome uh. .. in his singular office in his singular person and debated that first against jerry matics in december of nineteen ninety uh... out at city of the lord here in phoenix We debated that against Robert St. Genes and Scott Butler at Boston College. We debated that against Jerry Matitix at Denver Seminary and Faith Presbyterian Church. Seven and a half hours of debate between the New Testament evidence and the patristic evidence on that series with Mr. Matitix. I debated against Mitchell Pacwa on Long Island in 98. And so we have done conservatively, let's see, that'd be 7, 9, 12, about 15 hours of moderated debate on the subject of the papacy already. And so when I contacted St. Joseph's Communications, excuse me, I said, you know, we did sola scriptura. The opposite of sola scriptura is papal infallibility. Not just the papacy, but the idea that the papacy is infallible in its teaching office. That's what undergirds the concept of sola ecclesia, that the church is the final and ultimate authority for the believing Roman Catholic. It's not scripture and tradition. Because it is the Church, and especially the Pope, that defines what Scripture teaches and what Scripture is, what tradition teaches and what tradition is, and therefore, it's impossible for the papacy to be held accountable to Scripture and tradition, because you can't define those things or know what they mean outside the teaching of the papacy. I said, let's debate papal infallibility. And so that's the subject. If you listened to the Bible Answer Man broadcasts, and by the way, some of you have been going, hey, you know, you mentioned that you did three hours in studio on July 6th with Tim Staples, and we've only heard the first two. And I think I mentioned last week via the phone that the third week, third program, was by far the most intense, and it hasn't aired yet. Well, it's supposed to be, we don't have a firm date yet. There's some possibility of July 31st, but we're just not certain when it's going to air. But it will air eventually, and it will be most interesting for you to listen to that. all through the three hours in the Bible Answer Man broadcast, we kept saying, we're going to be debating the topic of papal infallibility on Friday night. And why do I emphasize the fact that everybody knew what the topic was, that it was papal infallibility. Even during the program, I brought up Bishop Honorius. I brought up Pope Honorius, the Bishop of Rome, and I said, we're going to be talking about this tomorrow evening. There was absolutely no reason in the world for Mr. Staples to be confused as to what we were supposed to be talking about. Why do I mention this? Well, because when we started the debate, Mr. Staples, of course, defending papal infallibility, gets to go first. And in all of his presentation, he never quoted from Vatican I, which defined papal infallibility, He didn't mention Honorius, he didn't mention Liberius, he didn't mention Zosimus, he didn't mention John XXII, he didn't mention Sixtus V, he didn't mention any of the standard popes to which we refer who made errors. In fact, he didn't even define papal infallibility. Instead, as you listen to the tapes, and it would be silly for me to in any way, shape, or form misrepresent this because we're selling the tapes, If you listen to the tapes, he has 30 minutes, and in his 30 minutes he talks about Matthew 16, Luke 22, John 21, and the primacy of Peter in the Gospels. In other words, he gives a presentation very similar, somewhat anyways, to the debates that I've done against many Roman Catholics in the past on the existence of the papacy, but without even mentioning the early church. Just a biblical presentation, and even then a very interesting biblical presentation. I was just looking for some stuff in the first tape to queue up, and wasn't able to find what I was looking for in the first tape, and it was specifically, I think it's in the rebuttal period, where he talked about how when Peter pulled the fish up on shore, that this must have been, I guess, some indication of his power or something, because, as he put it, Peter wasn't on steroids. And while we were queuing it up, we listened to a section where he talked about how Jesus was giving to Peter a power when he walked upon the water that had never been given to any man. So therefore, there's a papacy and the Pope is to be followed and obeyed, I guess. Obviously, when you start taking that kind of argumentation apart, it becomes tremendously tenuous, but that's what was presented. And as I sat there listening to this, I was absolutely amazed. I was amazed especially because of the fact that I had purchased from St. Joseph Communications a three tape series on the subject of infallibility. It was called infallibility versus impeccability, but it was a defense of papal infallibility. And on the particular pope that I spent the most of my time, Pope Honorius, he had spent a tape and a half. trying to defend Pope Honorius. He knows what the issues are, but he didn't present them in his opening statement. Now, if you listen to my opening statement from 1996, you will see that I not only define sola scriptura, I say what it isn't, and I preemptively answer most of the arguments that I knew Mr. Staples was going to be presenting. That's the advantage of getting to go first. You get to define the subject and you get to, in essence, argue for your side before the other guy gets a chance to start. That's the advantage of going first. Well, for some reason, Mr. Staples chose not to do so, so I got up. And I had 30 minutes and I focused upon Pope Honorius. I focused upon Pope Zosimus' command to the North African churches to accept Pelagius and Celestius back into communion, even after they had condemned them as heretics, and the fact that it was the North Africans that were right, Pope Zosimus that was wrong. And one of the main things I emphasized in my presentation was, if you can't know today that the guidance you're getting from the Bishop of Rome is infallible and true, what good is the doctrine? And I demonstrated that there were periods of time in the past where if you had followed the current teaching of the current Bishop of Rome, you would have been in error. And it was only decades or years later that the error was quote-unquote fixed. And so if you can't know that what the Pope is teaching today is infallible. If you can't even know whether it's an ex cathedra statement or not, whether it's from the chair, whether it's meant to be taken infallibly or not, and no one can know that, if you can't know these things, then what good is the doctrine? What good is the doctrine indeed? And so, I had 30 minutes. I presented on Honorius, Zosimus, and very briefly, because my time was running out, I had to sort of hurry on Sixtus V and his infallible Vulgate. Well, Mr. Stables gets up and he says, well, at least I stuck to scripture in my opening presentation. We know what Mr. White's tactic is going to be. His tactic is going to be to focus on this issue of papal infallibility. Well, that's what the debate was about, and so that's what I was doing. Now, to get to the point, because we're going to play a whole section of the debate for you today on the program. And I am going to shamelessly, shamelessly steal from a famous, excellent radio broadcaster. in giving you commentary on what took place during the cross-examination period on the debate just a couple of weeks ago. And it will be shameless. It will not be as good as he does it. In fact, he warns us amateurs not to try to do what he does, but I'm going to take a shot at it anyways. So we're going to listen to a section of the debate, but before we do that, to understand what happened During the cross-examination, you need to understand two things. A, Mr. Staples was simply out of control during the Bible Answer Man broadcast at times. Even though he was given significantly more time to answer questions and to say things than I was. In fact, if you listen to the broadcast, you can listen to him at Equip.org, the first two anyways. uh... and same thing happened mister akins james akin was on the program i get about forty percent of time and the roman catholic it's about sixty percent of time just time it out for yourself actually i think that's conservative i think it's more like about sixty five thirty five but i expect that because it's a quote-unquote protestant program and so to be fair you gonna give the person who sort of uh... in the minority of the opportunity of of saying more So, even when I would speak, and this is especially true in the third hour, even when I would speak, Mr. Staples could not keep his mouth shut. And when he disagreed with what I was saying, he would simply talk over me and say that's a lie. And there's one point in the third hour where Hank Hanegraaff tries to go to the next caller and Mr. Staples will not stop talking. He talks over Hank and he talks over the caller to try to finish his point. He will not stop talking. Well, this caused myself, Warren Smith, who traveled over with me. Hi Warren, don't drive off the road. And Eddie Dalkour, our friend from Southern California, who were in the studio. We're talking afterwards and we go, man, this does not bode well for the debate. Because in a debate, you have to follow the rules. And especially in the cross-examination period, you've got to follow the rules. and so before the debate started i said the jerry usher who was the moderator of the debate i said mr usher i have some concerns uh... last time mister staples couldn't follow the time limits And if you listen to the tape, you'll hear the time going off. Beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep. And Mr. Stables just keeps right on rolling. I said, I want strict adherence to the time limits. Secondly, I don't think he can handle the cross-examination that we've designed. And what was the cross-examination? The cross-examination was the free-flowing, scholarly kind of cross-examination where the person asking the questions only asks questions. You don't argue, you don't make statements, you ask questions on the subject of the debate and specifically on the issues that have already been raised. That's what cross-examination is supposed to be. The person responding does not filibuster, they do not avoid the question, they give short, concise responses to the questions that are asked. And I said to Mr. Usher, I do not believe that Tim Staples is capable of doing this. I was very upfront. I was very straightforward. And he said, well, we will talk with Tim before the debate begins. Mr. Staples got there about 20 minutes before it was to begin. We had a huddle. Mr. Staples, myself, and Jerry Usher, we met behind the stage, back behind the curtains, and I again voiced my concern. And Mr. Staples, even though I said, now did you all watch the debate with Mitch Pacwa? Did you see how we did the question-answer? Yes, we watched that. I said, that's how it needs to be done. Mr. Staples said he would abide by the rules. I'm standing not two feet from him. He looks at me and says, I can do it. That's what I'll do. Now, why is that important? Well, once we start playing some sections, you'll see why. Now, the second thing you need to understand to really understand the question and answer period, especially the first few minutes, is what happened at the end of my rebuttal period. At the end, we each had 15 minute rebuttal periods, and at the end of our 15 minute rebuttal periods, we took a 15 minute break And the question and answer period began right after the 15 minute break. So right before the breaks to start, now I've got the last word because I'm the one denying, so Mr. Staples went first, then I went second, both in our presentations and in our rebuttals. So, right before the end, and if you're listening last week, you heard this. Right before the end of my period, I presented something. And I have my debate notes right in front of me. And I'm going to read you what it says. It takes 4 minutes and 45 seconds, by the way. But I'll probably read it a little bit faster than I did before because I want to get all this stuff in. Here's what I said I would like to provide a very cogent example of the problem with papal infallibility Authority in the matter of how we have to interpret when the Pope is allegedly teaching infallibly It will be cogent because it speaks directly to what we are doing here this evening. My opponent this evening, Mr. Tim Staples, is not an ordained priest. He is, to my knowledge, a layman. Yet, in his tape series on infallibility, he makes it very plain that he considers it heresy to say that the only time you have to obey the Pope is when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra. In responding to a priest who said that to him, Mr. Staples replied with great zeal, quote, and here's Tim Staples from his own tape series, quote, You know, I almost fell over. I'm like, have you ever read anything from the documents of the Church? Have you read anything? How about Unum Sanctum, which was written in the 14th century? It says we are bound not by just what the Pope teaches about faith and morals, but juridically. Whatever the Pope says, you and I are bound to. If he says tomorrow we're going to say the Mass in Swahili in the United States, he has the authority to do that, and we are bound to obey. Have you ever heard this? I love the papacy, I love the Pope, but only when he speaks ex cathedra. If he's not speaking ex cathedra, then I don't have to obey him, I can do whatever I want. That is a heresy, folks. That is a heresy from way back. That's what he says, unquote. So, he says it's a heresy to say you only have to obey the Pope when he's speaking ex cathedra. Then I continue with my notes. I can truly appreciate Mr. Staple's position. However, it seems to place him in a difficult position given what we read in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 under the topic, Religious Discussions. Here's what we read, quote. It is not then surprising that the question of disputations with heretics has been made the subject of ecclesiastical legislation. By decree of Alexander IV, inserted in Sextus Decretialum, Book 5, Chapter 2, and still in force, all laymen are forbidden, under threat of excommunication, to dispute publicly or privately with heretics on the Catholic faith. The text reads, quote, we furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication, unquote. Continuing with the Catholic Encyclopedia, it says this law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and Dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological, the latter to disputations more or less formal and engrossing the attention of the public. There are numerous questions, somewhat connected with theology, which many laymen, who have received no scientific theological training, can treat more intelligently than a priest. But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defense of it to the clergy. " And I continue with what I said. The article goes on to lay out the limitations in which even clergy must function, and documents that this decree is fully relevant to our debate this evening, as Rome had likewise forbidden even priests from engaging in debates on theological topics with those of the Reformation, and even as recently as less than a century ago, Rome had cited these decrees to forbid Catholics from engaging in disputes with socialists. The point is obvious. If the Pope is infallible, and if, as Mr. Staples said so strongly on his tape series, Catholics are bound to obey even his juridical pronouncements, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra, then it follows inevitably that Mr. Staples need to show us where this decree of Alexander IV, from the Sextus Decretialum, has been rescinded, or why it is not obviously applicable to what we are doing this evening, or explain why it was once valid for a Pope to teach this, but it no longer is. And in any situation, Mr. Staples will have to engage in private interpretation of the papal decree. And what if there are other decrees, likewise relevant, that are simply unknown to us? This illustrates the problem with thinking that papal infallibility provides the kind of assurance Roman Catholic apologists often assert that it does. Indeed, it has been suggested to me that we offer Mr. Staples two options. If he continues the debate, he will need to explain why Alexander IV, whom he would identify as the Vicar of Christ and infallible successor of Peter, centuries ago forbade Catholics from doing what he himself is doing tonight in the exact same context. And the other option is that Mr. Staples will obey Alexander IV's decree, and I will get the rest the evening to more slowly and fully explain the reasons for not believing in papal infallibility. Since we are now going to take a 15-minute break, I for one will be looking forward to finding out which direction Mr. Staples will go. Now, we take a break, and then we're doing cross-examination. Cross-examination is not a rebuttal period. The only period in which Mr. Staples, by debate rules, would have a time to respond to this would be during his final closing statement. However, that's not how it went. So, Mr. Pierce, if you would be so kind as to roll the tape. Stop the tape! Stop the tape! has a pretty good impersonation uh... mister staples this is the cross-examination period it is not a rebuttal period it is not time for you to respond to what has been said in the previous parts the debate it is cross-examination is supposed to be asking questions he insisted on having a rebuttal period then what it would have been fair would have been for him to go the moderator say look I need to have a minute or two minutes to respond to what was said right before the break. And then what would have been fair? To give me the exact same period of time to respond to what he said. That's what debates are all about, Mr. Staples. That's how it's supposed to be done, but that's not how it was done. Let's continue with the tape. As far as the matter of not being able to speak and present the capital position, That's a matter that's hundreds of years old. There's a new code of canon law and a new catechism that's a matter of jurists. It's a juridical matter, not a matter of dogma, and those matters change. And the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that we as Catholics, all of us, as does the decree on the laity in Vatican II, says that all Catholics have both the right and the duty to defend the Catholic faith. So at any rate... Stop the tape! Stop the tape! You hear the people... Oh, that's wonderful, that's wonderful. Well, he could have said, the Pope is cool! And they would have given him a standing ovation at the same time. Mr. Staple, since you didn't want to give me the same amount of time that you took to provide rebuttals, let me point out to you that's not an answer. You say there's a new code of canon law. How do you know that? Are you an infallible interpreter of canon law? The old encyclopedia of the Catholic Church says that that was still in force in 1917. Are you saying there's a new canon law since 1917? If there's a new canon law, then what happened to the old canon law? If it was infallible back then, is it infallible now? Aren't you just engaging in private interpretation? Let me mention something. I don't think Mr. Staples had ever heard of the decree of Alexander IV. And so we get basically an impromptu interpretation. How does he know that's right? Did he contact Rome? I didn't see him on a cell phone with numbers to get into Italy. How does he know that he's right about that? Catholic apologists are constantly doing this issue of private interpretation, and how are we supposed to know they're right? And if these things are dogmatic, and if these things are relevant to the very salvation of our souls, why should we follow them? We should have Pope John Paul online every night for live chat so that people can get their infallible guidance on understanding these things. If, of course, the arguments that are being presented are valid. Okay, well let's hear what the first question. Now remember, we're supposed to be asking concise questions. Let's hear Mr. Staples' first question. I got it. Please, no, no, no, no. I got it. Now, a question for you is, we believe as Catholics that the Bible establishes very clearly that the Scripture is the infallible, inspired Word of God. We agree on that. However, my question for you is, how do we in fact know Let's say, for example, the epistle to the Hebrews. To this day we do not know who wrote it. Mark's gospel, Luke's gospel, they are not written by apostles. How do we know that those books should be included in sacred scripture? How do we know, in fact, that we have 27 books of the New Testament if sola scriptura is the principle whereby we determine all of our dogmas and doctrines. Stop the tape! Stop the tape! Stop the tape! Not only did that take 50 seconds, almost an entire minute to ask, but it seems that Mr. Staples went into a time warp. That was the topic of the debate in 1996, and if you listen to the tapes, you'll discover that he already asked that question in 1996. The topic today is papal infallibility. Not the canon of scripture. I would be happy to debate these Catholic apologists on the canon of scripture. I would be happy to have the time to actually develop the concept, defend the concept, and point out to people, hey, you know what? You don't have any meaningful answers to the issue of the canon. Saying, well, the Pope told me is not a meaningful answer to the issue of the canon. And I had to point out over and over again that, for example, Pope Gregory the Great had a different canon than the modern Roman Catholic Church. If any of you are interested, we did a debate, at least on the Apocrypha, against Gerry Matiticks at Boston College in 1993. We make that available. So you can debate issues of the canon, I think, quite successfully with Roman Catholics. But that's not the subject of the debate, is it? It's papal infallibility. And so, the first question, and we're already about two minutes into the cross-examination period, okay? Two minutes into it, and the first question, so far, has not even touched on the subject of debate. We've had a rebuttal period, and then we've had a 50-second giving of a question by Mr. Staples that is not even on the subject of the debate itself. And it's only gonna get worse, folks. So, we're gonna take a break, and then we'll be right back here on The Dividing Line. 1-888-550-1360. I'd like to at least try to get through his questions and answers, and maybe mine, so we're gonna be a little quick on the calls, but if you'd like to call in now, now's your time to do it. We'll be right back. And welcome back to Dividing Line. We are listening to the cross-examination period during the debate held in Fullerton, and let's go right back to it with my response to Mr. Staples. A fundamental misapprehension of the nature of the canon. The canon is not something the Church creates by her authority. The canon exists because of the work of inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And just as the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament and during the period of time between the Old and New Testaments was able to guide the people of God to a passive recognition of what God had inspired, so much so that Jesus could hold men accountable to the scriptures without any infallible source for them to go to, to know what those scriptures were, the same thing happens in the New Testament. And I think this is clearly evident in the fact that in the differences that you and I have over the issue of the canon, that the canon that I hold to is the same canon that was held to by Jesus and the apostles, by Athanasius, by Origen, by Jerome, and interestingly enough by Gregory, the great bishop of Rome as well, the first of the great medieval popes. Okay, you didn't answer the question though. Perhaps you didn't hear it. Let me rephrase it. I heard it fine, so you don't need to suggest that. Let me rephrase it. How do we know that we have 27 books of the New Testament, not 28? not 29, not 25. For example, we have men, fathers of the Church, early Christian writers as well, that deny certain books of the Bible that you and I accept, say, Origen, who said 2 Peter is doubtful, say, Eusebius, who said Revelation is spurious, said other books were doubtful like 2 Peter, and other books of the New Testament, Hebrews, I believe 2 and 3 John, My question is, now we as Catholics understand that tradition precedes sacred scripture, just as in the Old Testament, the family of God existed 430 years before the scriptures began to be wrote down. We understand that tradition precedes, and then you have an authority that declares what the books of the Bible are. I'm asking you, who is your authority for declaring which books of the Bible are the books of the Bible? Again, I heard your question just fine. I pointed out that it was based upon a misapprehension of the nature of the canon. Seemingly, you seem to feel that there is a need for an infallible authority to define the canon of Scripture. And I pointed out to you... Sir, this is supposed to be question and answer. You're asking me questions and I give you answers. I will try to answer your question. I'm just asking for an authority. Sir, let me finish my answer please. Okay. I believe that since the Lord Jesus Christ could hold men accountable for what the scriptures were without any infallible authority that I have the exact same foundation that the person living 50 years before Christ had for knowing that Isaiah was scripture or Deuteronomy was scripture. And that is, I believe God has a purpose in inspiring that which is theanoustos, and that God will not allow the purpose, which is the edification of his people, to go amiss and to go without fruition. And therefore, God has led his people to recognize, not through the use of an infallible authority or some authority external to scripture, but through his guidance of his people in a passive way to recognize that which he has inspired, which is theanoustos. Okay, and what is your Biblical proof for that? The Biblical proof is found, for example, in the fact that in Matthew chapter 22, the Lord Jesus holds men accountable for what God has spoken to them in Scripture. He said that what they read in Scripture is what God has spoken to them. From the premise of your question, they should have responded and said, oh, but we don't have an infallible authority to tell us what is and is not Scripture, so you can't hold us accountable. Since they did not, the very premise of your question is flawed and in error. Actually, Mr. White, my question was, what was the authority by which the people, let's say 50 years before Christ, what was the authority they had in order to determine what the canon was, it's obvious to me that the authority must be outside of the scriptures because the scriptures themselves don't tell us. There is no divinely inspired table of contents. But at any rate... That was another question. You asked a question and I will now answer it. I didn't ask you a question. In other words, he's admitting that what he had just said for 30 seconds wasn't a question. He was arguing a point. Folks, this is the same man who stood two feet from me and said, I will abide by the rules of cross-examination. I will ask succinct questions. I will expect succinct answers. The exact same individual who, upon standing behind the podium in front of his followers, all of a sudden, what was said only an hour or two hours beforehand, somehow gets forgotten. Let's continue. And since scripture is God speaking, you are asking for an authority above that which God says. And that is not what the scripture teaches, sir. I'm asking if we have disagreement among the fathers of the church, which is a historical fact. Yes. There was disagreement among the church fathers for hundreds of years, as you pointed out, which screams of the necessity, the obvious necessity, for a church. Hence, Jesus gave us one in Matthew 18, 15 through 18. Is that a question, sir? And there's no sense in going over it again because I just don't think you're seeing things. Okay, the next question is this. I'll just mention in passing that was an obvious breach of the rules. While he is in his own place, the rest also continue in their churches, for he is able by his arguments and his faith to persuade all men against us. He is the president of councils, and his letters are everywhere attended to. He it was who put forth the Nicene Confession and proclaimed everywhere that the Arians were heretics." Referring to Hoseus, who, according to St. Athanasius, presided at the councils of Nicaea and Sardica. If he did, in fact, and by the way, in De Fuga, section 5, Athanasius goes on to say, when was there a council held in which he did not take the lead? And Sozomen, in his history, book 3, chapter 12, says similarly that Hoseus and Protagonus, who was Bishop of Sardegna, presided at that council. Why is it that if the Bishop of Rome did not have authority over or the final word on these councils, why did Hosius at Sardica, which Athanasius said he presided at, why does he then, and I quote from Sozomans, now this is a 4th century historian, not a 19th century Protestant historian, from the 4th century he writes, Fearing perhaps lest they should be suspected of making innovations upon the doctrines of Nicaea, they appealed to Julius. Why do they appeal to Julius if Hosius is the presider? That took a minute and 40 seconds. I didn't say to stop that. You ruined the whole effect there. I'm not sure what the question is, but I will tell you this, that at the Council of Nicaea, Hosius, it is often said, was representing the Bishop of Rome. If you're making that statement, I would say to you that that is actually in error. Secondly, there were many appeals made to many of those who sat in the apostolic sees, which included Julius. Many issues were referred to many bishops. You have the Roman deacons referring issues to Cyprian and calling him Pope a hundred years earlier. That does not in any way, shape, or form mean anything outside the fact that you cannot provide a quotation from Athanasius, where he says that the Nicene Creed depends for its authority and its foundation upon the statement of the Roman bishop as the infallible vicar of Christ. Okay, next question. since i have to make it a question i'm not allowed to say that all christians both orthodox and catholic understand that the roman pontiff must stop the tapes do you hear that do you hear that He knows! He's not even making a pretense! He knows! Well, I know that I'm not supposed to actually say this, however, I'm not supposed to say that, and then... I mean, over the radio you may not be able to hear it, but I'm hearing it through the headphones, and you can hear in the background, you can hear people laughing. You can hear people laughing because it's so obvious that there's absolutely no concern whatsoever for what's going on as far as what is supposed to be being done. But let's continue on. What you say about the condemnation, now, we need to understand that the nature of the condemnation, as I said, Pope Saint Leo II made very clear concerning Honorius, was not because of a formal heresy that he taught, but was because of his negligence, his actions, his sin in his negligence. Now, if it's true, however, that Honorius was a heretic in the sense that you want to say that he is, that he was a formal heretic, Why is it that Pope Agatho and his letter was read at the Council of Constantinople in the fourth session where he says, this is the rule of the true faith which the spiritual mother of your most tranquil emperor, the apostolic Church of Christ has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended. This church, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, that is, the Roman Church. Nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the very beginning, she has received the Christian faith from her founders, and it goes on." Now, if St. Agatho makes this statement at the Council, then at the Fourth Council of Constantinople, we have in the Canons, if you read Canons 7 through 21, the Fathers there make it very clear that in the future we must Be sure, lest there be any outrageous statements made again against the Bishop of Rome, that the Bishop of Rome first be appealed to. Why is it? you continue to hold to, or why is it that you say that these men believed that Pope Honorius taught heresy in a formal sense? Now again, I want to emphasize, guys, we acknowledge the Pope sinned by his negligence, according to St. Leo II in his ratification of the Council. But the question is, given all of these facts, Pope St. Agatho, and the Fourth Council of Constantinople in her canons, how can you hold to the fact that Honorius taught formal heresy? Stop the tape! What was that? Three minutes? Three minutes of reading stuff and reading statements and I mean, not even trying to act like there is a cross-examination period going here. I actually stood back from the podium. I went and stood back next to what I should have done. You know how you always sit back and go, oh, if I just thought about what I should have done. I should have sat down. I sat down at my desk and when it came time for, when he finally got done, I could have looked over. Oh, is there a question there? That's what I should have done. Are you going to say something? could i've objected if i had a moderator uh... uh... the next debate we're gonna do uh... on long island on purgatory we're going to have a moderator who will be actively involved in controlling everything a trained debate judge moderator who will shut you up if you break the rules he will say no sets not a relevant topic please continue on He will control the debate for both sides. And that's going to make a big, big difference. I can guarantee you that. But he's not even making a semblance of trying here. So let's finish up with his stuff here. I would be glad to respond to that five-minute assertion. Oh, by the way, by the way, that had exhausted his time. The 12 minutes were up. He went all the way past the 12 minutes asking that question. So, here he's asking a question and allegedly I have no time to respond to it. So that's what I was asking the moderator, what are we going to do? The moderator said, you don't have to answer it because he used up all his own time. Go ahead. I would like to point out that this, Mr. Staples, you have violated our agreement on these questions egregiously over the past 12 minutes. How's that? Because you're not asking questions, you're making statements. I asked a question. And I will be glad at the end of five minutes. I would be glad to point out, first of all, Leo did not change the wording of the Council. You have never quoted Leo in saying that Honorius was not condemned for heresy. You have not dealt with the words of the Sixth Council. You have not dealt with the words of the Seventh Council. You have not dealt with the words of the Eighth Council or the Trollan Council. And your quotation of Agatho, sir, is glaringly out of context. I would invite anyone, the whole letter, Pope Agatho's letter, is available in the last volume of the Early Church Fathers set. Read the whole thing and ask yourself one question. Ask yourself one question. Does Agatho ever once mention Honorius? Answer, no. And the sixth ecumenical council in writing to Honorius, Is there a reason for you holding that up, sir? Sure. Okay, you need to understand what's going on here. Mr. Staple stands in front of the audience, and he's holding a photocopy of Agatho's letter, and he's just holding it out in front of the audience. See? See, I've got it right here. Got it right here. That's what's going on there. Go ahead. Can I start my 12 minutes now? Yeah, I was going to say, you don't need to respond to his. Okay, alright. Alright. Well, in fact, I will right now. See, there's the crowd. Go ahead and stop it there for a second. There's the crowd. There's the Catholic crowd. You didn't answer the question! They don't see the time frame and evidently don't have any concern about the fact that their champion has been violating the time frames all over the place. In fact, I'd like to thank Spinster in our chat room. Spinster took the time to listen to these cross-examinations and he informed me this morning that if you include one section where I insisted on giving an answer, Mr. Staples asked in 12 minutes, five questions. Five questions in 12 minutes. Now in the next section we're going to play, we have to start pretty quickly to hear my entire cross-examination. If you don't include yes or no sir, if you don't include repetitive questions, Our friend in California who counted them counted 31 questions will be asked of Mr. Staples. That's the difference between obeying the rules and debating and filibustering and posturing for your audience. So here now is my 12-minute cross-examination of Mr. Staples. Stop the clock. You don't have to. Well, I understand that. This is what I was expecting. Let me ask you a few questions. Mr. Staples, does Pope Agatho use the name Honorius in his letter, yes or no? He says, can I quote him? You just did. Can you answer the question yes or no? Does Pope Agatho make reference to Honorius in his letter to the Sixth Ecumenical Council? Yes or no? No, he says the Bishop of Rome and... So the answer is no, sir? Peter's faith, the apostolic pontiffs, and my predecessors. That means... Does he say... No, he doesn't use the name. Okay, thank you. He does include Pope Honorius. Okay, may I continue? Mr. White, you can't... May I continue, sir? Did the sixth ecumenical council write to Pope Agatho and say the following words? We have destroyed the fort of the heretics and slain them with anathema in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Perron, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc. Did the council say that? Yes. And does that say that they have anathematized Honorius as a heretic, sir. They've condemned him. Yes. They use the word anathema. That's right. Okay. Let me ask you as well, sir in the 13th session of the 6th ecumenical council. Is there a condemnation found of honorius? Yes. Were his letters burned before the 6th Ecumenical Council as being hurtful to the soul? That I don't know. It's irrelevant. The fact is he was condemned for his actions, not for his teaching. So his letters were actions or were they teachings? His letters were teachings that indicated his negligence. In the 16th session, the bishops exclaimed, anathema to the heretic Honorius. Is that true or false, sir? That is true. Is this an ecumenical council, sir? Yes, it is. Are ecumenical councils infallible, sir? When they are ratified by the Pope, that had not been yet. Could you please show me a single individual, excuse me, could you show me a single canon existing before the sixth ecumenical council that says that councils are not proper councils until ratified by the Bishop of Rome. A canon. Yes, sir. Any statement of any council at all, of the first five ecumenical councils, the one that preceded the sixth, which one of those councils told us that they cannot be true councils until ratified by the Bishop of Rome? Well, they don't have to, James. So you would say that you don't know of one? You don't have to, James. It's like asking, where in the Bible do we have a list of the 27 books? Therefore, we can't have them. It's irrelevant. Your question is irrelevant. Mr. Staples, it is your assertion... Yes. It is your assertion that the members of the Sixth Ecumenical Council believed, as you, that the Pope is infallible and that their council was dependent upon the authority of the Pope to be a valid council. Is that your assertion? That's right. But when I ask for any statement by any council that preceded them, or the Sixth Ecumenical Council itself, are you saying you just don't need to do that? No, not that you don't need to do that, but what we see is in action all of the councils, as both our Greek Orthodox brothers and Catholics, all reputable historians, anyone, who would honestly examine the facts, know that this is the lived faith of the Church. You don't have an ecumenical council until the patriarchs, in particular the Bishop of Rome, sign until the Bishop of Rome. You've answered the question, sir. You've answered the question. Why do Roman Catholic scholars such as Merdinger, Klotz, and others disagree with you? Or are they not, at teaching at the American Catholic University, they are not true scholars? Is that the problem? Well, we do have some problems with some who call themselves Catholics, but what I want to emphasize here is we need to take a look at history and the historical facts are very simple. Whether you look at the statements of St. Athanasius concerning Nicaea and Sardica, which was the president of, yet he appealed to the Bishop of Rome as, and I find it interesting that even the Eastern Orthodox to this day acknowledge the Council of Sardica or at least up until the year 1024, acknowledged the Council of Sardica as authoritative and said that you can appeal to Rome. Thank you, sir. Are you aware of the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals, sir? Yes, and they are false. Yes, and you're aware they were written 200 years before the split with the East? They are false. Are you aware they were written 200 years before the split with the East? Sure. And as a result, when you say that the East agrees with what they said, all of them go back to the same false decretals, correct? No. In fact, we have modern Orthodox as well as Russian Orthodox who acknowledge the Council of Sardica, not based on any pseudo-decretals, but on history. Could I ask you why it is that the Council of Trullo, which met 12 years after the Council of Constantinople, said the following? that we confess in the Lord Jesus there is one will and that there are two natural wills or volitions and two natural operations and condemned by a just sentence those who adulterated the true doctrine and taught the people that in the one Lord Jesus Christ there is but one will and one operation to wit Theodore, Cyrus, Honorius of Rome, Sergius, etc, etc. If you're right, And all the church believed that it was Leo's letters that corrected the 6th Ecumenical Council. Why is it that 12 years later, another council condemns Honorius as a heretic? And in fact, having taught the people that in the one Lord Jesus Christ there is but one will, The Council of Trullo is not an ecumenical council, number one. I'm not aware of that that you just read from the Council of Trullo. However, I do know it's not one of the 21 ecumenical councils. And what all Catholics acknowledge, and Orthodox, are not local councils do not have binding authority on the universal church. Would that include Hippo and Carthage? That's right. Okay, thank you. Now, the Second Nicene Council is ecumenical, right? Yes. The Seventh Ecumenical. Which council? The Second Nicene, the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Yes. We affirm that in Christ there be two wills and two operations according to the reality of each nature. As also the Sixth Synod held at Constantinople taught, casting out Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, and those who agree with them, and all those who are unwilling to be reverent. Could you explain why the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which is ecumenical, likewise somehow did not know about Leo's words and did not make a correction in their wording so as to reflect Leo's infallible guidance? I want you to notice the words. The Second Council of Nicaea did not condemn him as a heretic. He was, once again, condemned for his negligence. In fact, the word there, heretic, was not even used, but we have to remember Pope Leo II, in ratifying the Council, made it very clear what he was condemned for. He was condemned for negligence. Could you quote exactly what Leo says and explain why it is that these words do not mean that Honorius was a heretic? Leo anathematizes Honorius, who did not illuminate this apostolic sea with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching. Could you tell me where in this letter he corrects He says, the Sixth Ecumenical Council was wrong, he was not a heretic, instead he was merely negligent. Could you show us those words where he says that, or is that just your interpretation of his words? You read the words he said very clearly there. Did anybody here hear him condemned? So let me ask you, I'm just wondering, because let me answer the question. What Pope Leo II said very clearly is he permitted the faith to be stained by his negligence, not by teaching overtly heresy, okay? But where does he say that, sir? I'm sorry, has the church ever infallibly interpreted Leo's words, or is just this your private interpretation of this that goes against the interpretation of many Roman Catholic scholars who have studied history for longer than you and I have been alive together? Well, I'm afraid that is the end of our time. Let's go ahead and stop that. That's the end of our time. It was a fascinating time. How can you get this debate? www.aomin.org is where you need to go to order it online. www.aomin.org. If you have anyone considering the claims of Roman Catholicism, that's where you need to go to get this debate and many others. Thanks for being with us today on The Dividing Line. We will be taking your calls next week. Thanks to those who called. We just couldn't get to you because I talk too much. But anyways, thanks for being with us today. God bless. We'll be back next week. The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries. If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602-973-0318 or write us at P.O. Box 366, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the World Wide Web at aomin.org. That's A-O-M-I-N.O-R-G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks. Join us again next Saturday afternoon at 2 p.m. for The Dividing Line.